MUNWA DEVI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by Senior Manager ( Pers.) Topa Colliery, C.C.L.( Annexure -12) whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It appears that petitioner's husband, namely, Bhikhu Karmali died in harness on 27.10.2003. Thereafter petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 24.01.2004. It then appears that at that time, petitioner's two sons, namely, Sikandar Karmali and Sachin Karmali were aged about 23 years and 18 years respectively. Therefore, the management of the CCL advised the petitioner to agree for providing employment to her elder son, namely, Sikandar Karmali. However, at that time, petitioner did not agree with the aforesaid advised of the CCL and insisted that she may be employed on compassionate basis. It appears that CCL denied her request and in stead of employing her, gave her monetary benefit provided under clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA -VI. It further appears that the petitioner refused to accept the monetary benefit and filed a representation for giving employment to her elder son, namely, Sikandar Karmali. However, the aforesaid representation dated 30 th October, 2007 has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that since the CCL management has already issued order for providing monetary benefit to the petitioner, therefore, her representation for providing employment to her elder son is not acceptable. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this writ application.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment, her age was about 40 years. This fact is also accepted by the CCL in its counter affidavit at paragraph no. 16. It is further submitted that in the counter affidavit it is stated that the high level medical board, after examining the petitioner had concluded that at the relevant time, she was aged about 42 and 1/ 2 years. Learned counsel further submits that as per clause 9.5.0 (II) of the NCWA -VI, it is clear that if the female dependent is less than 45 years then she has option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment. Learned counsel submits that it is admitted position that petitioner, at the relevant time, gave option for employment, but the CCL Management was compelling her to accept the monetary benefit in place of employment. It is submitted that in fact CCL had passed order for providing monetary benefit against the will of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is clear from the impugned order that petitioner has refused to accept the monetary benefit and filed a representation for giving employment to her elder son as per the earlier advise of the CCL. But now the CCL refused to provide employment to petitioner's elder son on the ground that CCL has passed order for giving monetary benefit to the petitioner as per clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA - VI. It is submitted that aforesaid action of the CCL is highly arbitrary and against the NCWA -VI.